Not everyone is embracing higher entrance fees proposed for national parks/Kurt Repanshek
As more and more units of the National Park System propose higher entrance fees as directed by Park Service Director Jon Jarvis, opposition is being voiced around the country, with one mayor saying higher fees to enter Yellowstone National Park could lead to reduced tourism dollars in her town.
With Congress poised to create at least four new units to the park system, and approving expansions of other parks, funding the Park Service likely will become even more difficult if the lawmakers don't also find more money for the agency. While park officials across the country say higher entrance fees are needed to fund various improvements and provide for visitor services, they are seeing some pushback.
In Cody, Wyoming, Mayor Nancy Tia Brown is opposed to the higher fees being proposed at Yellowstone -- a 3-day pass for $30, a 7-day pass good for both Yellowstone and Grand Teton for $50 -- arguing that the fees would result in fewer tourist dollars spent in her town.
At Cape Cod National Seashore in Massachusetts, a former fee supervisor for the park said the proposal to increase fees would create a "logistical and political nightmare."
"The Seashore has not made the enforcement of its current $3 daily individual pass a priority because of the park's unique permeable nature, and because of the wish to encourage visitors to use alternative forms of transportation aligned with the Climate Friendly Parks initiative. While parks like the Grand Canyon have gates, the Seashore does not, so attempting to charge that fee would be logistically impossible," Karl Thompsen wrote in a letter to the Cape Cod Times.
"Actually implementing such a draconian change would also prove politically disastrous for the park's community and visitor relations, which both undermines the park's interdependent relationship with surrounding towns and places an unnecessary burden on the rangers interacting with the public," he added.
At Gulf Islands National Seashore, a proposal to relocate entrance fee booths on the eastern and western ends of U.S. 399, also known as the J. Earle Bowden Way, and then charge $15 per vehicle to use the road that connects Pensacola Beach to Navarre Beach was being criticized by nearby residents who frequent the national seashore. Superintendent Dan Brown has tried to downplay the matter, telling the Pensacola News Journal the collection booths won't be moved if the public strongly opposes it. But he also noted that most locals would probably buy an annual pass to the seashore and so not encounter the entrance fee every time they headed to the seashore.
"Most of the comments so far have emphasized the worst-case scenario," the superintendent told the newspaper. "They're talking about a $15 toll, and you know no one who lives here locally and drives that on a regular basis would pay the fee every single time. '¦ If you drive it 240 days of the year to commute, it wouldn't be $15 times 240 days ' they would pay $30 for an annual pass."
Back in Wyoming, Jackson town leaders opposed higher fees proposed for Grand Teton National Park and the proposal to "unlink" Yellowstone and Grand Teton from one pass good in both parks. Fishing guides and other outfitters also opposed the increases.
'It is a little discouraging that the Park Service is going to go ahead and double the weekly cost of a pass from $25 to $50,' Taylor Phillips, who owns a wildlife safari company, told the Jackson Hole News & Guide. 'I would say 90 percent of our guests visit both parks.
A proposal to boost the entrance fee at Cabrillo National Monument near San Diego from $5 per car to $15 drew an angry response from Paul Nestor, who called the proposal "one of the most aggravating things I've ever heard."
"It is families who don't have a lot of money who come up here to show off this beautiful place in San Diego for all the residents. For them to bilk them out of $15, it's going to turn a lot of people away," Mr. Nestor said told ABC 10 News.
Mr. Nestor's view might play out across the National Park System at some of the small, urban parks where many visitors stop by during lunch or after work, or stop after seeing the park sign as they pass by. Five dollars per vehicle for a quick visit to enjoy a view or learn something about the park and why it was created might not sway people from stopping, but when the fee jumps to $15, those casual visitors might not pull in. If that scenario plays out, some park units could possibly lose money.
Another issue is that once parks collect more than $500,000 in entrance fees, they have to send 20 percent of the revenue to Washington for redistribution to other parks. Up to $500,000, they keep it all, thus creating another possible reason not to raise fees.
Comments
John, as you say, it's about setting priorities, something Congress seems incapable of doing unless it's in their own backyard, and even then...did you notice that the defense bill, while funding the military to the tune of $521 BILLION, contains no mention of paying for the parks in the bill?
How much will it cost the NPS to administer these new parks? How much will it cost the agency to raise these entrance fees? Will they staff entrance gates to collect them or, as now is the case in a number of parks, leave some gates unstaffed? Will the $5 parks that are proposing to charge $15 see an increase in traffic and so more entrance fee revenues, or a decrease? Will the inner city residents the NPS wants to lure into the parks be put off by the higher entrance fees?
Has anyone studied these questions? Why is there no increase in the $10-for-a-lifetime senior pass? What about higher fees for international visitors?
We do need to come up with a better way of funding the parks, but the current proposals as a whole beg some questions that should be asked.
And much of that deficit was two wars written on credit cards into the future and corporate tax cuts written on credit cards into the future. Unfortunately, the future for some of those debts incurred 10 or more years ago is now.
I pretty much agree with all of that, and would throw-in a lack of leadership from the executive branch to go along with the inability of Congress to act. I'm getting a new annual pass this weekend. It's $80, I think. Based on current fees and typical usage, I get five times that in value. It could cost more. Senior passes could cost more (imagine the hue and cry if that were tried). Collecting the fees is a problem at many places, as you note, and many don't bother to check or have no practical way to check. I am a supporter of the system, would like to see it grow (and to see what we already have well maintained), but I'd also like to see us live within our means. I prefer higher fees to higher taxes because I prefer to see what I pay for; with taxes, I'm confident -- as many have said here -- that the money will be wasted one way or the other. That's not to say fee revenue doesn't get wasted, by the NPS or others. But if that's the case, I can vote with my feet. I can't just refuse to pay taxes.
John,
You are deluded if you think you have any "vote" within the NPS. Public comments, sentiment and community input hold zero sway with the NPS. Now the chamber of commerce, that is another story. But as an average taxpaying citizen, show me an instance where a citizens group has voiced any concern recently to the NPS that was acted upon.
Packer--Check Muir Woods parking or Yellowstone winter use. Citizen groups played huge roles in these cases. Also your "double taxation" argument makes me giggle.
Rick
Rick,
Could you identify how much of that debt comes from "two wars written on credit cards" and what "corporate tax cuts" you are referring to? The first is a minor fraction of the debt, the second does not exit. But it does suite your narrative.
Before the NPS considers raising entrance fees it needs to rein in the micromanagers and the bean counters in WASO and remove the self-inflicted restrictions on the use of fee revenue. Makes no sense to raise entrance fees when they cannot be used to support park operations.
With regards to funding, the NPS can do more to improve its financial position. Reallocating a third of $600+million that is currently spent on HQ, Regional offices and administrative support to the field would be a start.
DOD always makes an easy target when advocating for more NPS funding. Given that DOD funding makes up about 19% of the federal budget while entitlement/safety net programs are close to 66% of the federal budget, there are better places to find more NPS funding than DOD.
Brutus, are you sure the restrictions are self-imposed? Or do they come in large part from Congressional meddling?
Are you sure the real problem with finding solutions to our budgetary and debt problems really are caused by the "entitlement/safety net programs," or are they caused by a Congress that lacks the integrity and courage it would take to actually try to work together to seek real answers to real problems?
Could the real problem be a gutless Congress filled with greedy career politicians who are becoming wealthy by pandering to a loud minority of Americans who control Congress by manipulating fear based on threats of ousting those politicans come next election? And is not the problem fed by a majority of Americans whose leanings lie not at the extreme left or extreme right, but somewhere in the middle, but who seem to have no voice -- and perhaps even more tragically -- don't want to turn off their entertainment to learn what needs to be done to change things with their votes?
What's happening to the NPS is just one tiny portion of the incredible mess we have made for ourselves.